HomeMy WebLinkAbout#14 - Bruggeman Open Space PUD Concept Plan Reveiw STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 07/07/2020
TO: City Council
FROM: Ken Roberts, Planning Director
AGENDA ITEM: Bruggeman Builders Open Space PUD – 2500 Manning Avenue –
Concept PUD Review
REVIEWED BY: Ben Prchal, City Planner
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Sarah Sonsalla, City Attorney
Lucius Jonett, City Landscape Architect
Ann Pung-Terwedo, Senior Planner, Washington County
INTRODUCTION:
Mr. Paul Bruggeman, representing Bruggeman Builders, is requesting City approval of a concept open
space planned unit development (OP PUD) for the property located at 2500 Manning Avenue.
The proposed concept plan for the OP PUD is for a 14 single family residential subdivision on 32.3 gross
acres with a density of +/- 0.45 dwelling units per acre (D.U.A). Much of the property is within the
Shoreland Management Area of Downs Lake. The Shoreland Ordinance has provisions for the
development of PUD’s in the areas near lakes, subject to additional design and performance standards.
In addition, the developer is proposing an OP PUD that would not meet all the City requirements for an
OP PUD and those for a residential development within a shoreland district. Such requested exceptions or
modifications include having lots that do not meet the lot width, lot area and impervious requirements for
new development near Natural Environment lakes such as Downs Lake. I will discuss these requests in
more detail later in this report.
On May 27, 2020, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed OP PUD concept plan for this
property. The Commission had a lengthy discussion about the merits of many of the Code standards for a
PUD within the shoreland of lake such as this site and the recommended conditions of approval. The
Planning Commission ultimately recommended approval of the OP PUD concept plan with a 5-1 vote.
This recommendation was subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and with an added condition
about having an HOA (for the care of the community-owned properties).
ISSUE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL:
The City Council is respectfully being requested to review and provide feedback to the developer
about the concept OP planned unit development (OP PUD) proposed by Bruggeman Builders for the
property located 2500 Manning Avenue North.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
City Council Meeting
July 7, 2020 Page 2
Applicant: Paul Bruggeman, Bruggeman Builders, Stillwater, MN 55042
Property Owner: Gary and Meg Johnson, 2500 Manning Avenue North
Location: 2500 Manning Avenue, Lake Elmo.
PID#: 24-029-21-13-0002
Request: Concept OP PUD Plan approval
Site Area: 32.3 acres (gross)
Existing Land Use: Single-family home and accessory buildings, agriculture
Land Use Guidance: Rural Area Development (RAD)
Current Zoning: RR – Rural Residential District
Proposed Zoning: Open Space PUD
Surrounding Zoning: OP PUD (Heritage Farms to the north), West Lakeland Township across
Manning Avenue (east), Rural Residential (RR) and Small lot residential
(RS) (south), RR (west).
History: The owners have used the property for hobby farming and the growing of
pumpkins. There is one single family dwelling and accessory building
on the property.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 4/28/2020
60 Day Deadline – 6/26/2020
Extension Letter Mailed – yes
120 Day Deadline – 8/24/2020
Applicable Code:
Article 15 - Open Space Planned Unit Development Regulations
Article 18 – Shoreland Management Overlay District
Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
§150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment Control
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Overview. The proposed Open Space (OP) PUD development will be located on a 32.3 acre property
located at 2500 Manning Avenue, just south of the Heritage Farms OP PUD development. The proposed
development is proposed as an OP PUD because the developer is proposing a rural-style residential
development and is requesting flexibility from the strict zoning regulations of the Shoreland Ordinance and
the rural zoning regulations.
The applicant’s submission to the City includes the following components:
• Concept Plan Overview. The attached project narrative includes a general overview of the
project with additional details concerning some of the unique aspects of the proposed
development.
City Council Meeting
July 7, 2020 Page 3
• Existing Conditions. The applicant has provided an aerial photo and site plan depicting the
existing conditions in and around the project area.
• Concept Plan. The OP PUD Concept Plan includes a proposed configuration of roads, lots,
and other public spaces on the applicant’s site. While the plan provides initial dimensions for
many of the various lots and streets, some details are still missing and will need to be further
reviewed for compliance with the City’s standards and regulations.
Land Use and Zoning Flexibility. Proposed lot layouts and street widths in some cases do not meet
minimum zoning or shoreland ordinance requirements. The City’s OP PUD Ordinance allows for some
flexibility from zoning and subdivision requirements, subject to City Council approval. Single family
homes are a permitted use in the underlying RR zoning district
Land Use: The proposed residential development is consistent with the future land use map, which
guides this area RAD (rural area development).
OP PUD Ordinance Regulations:
The following OP PUD Code sections are relevant to this proposal:
Section 154.657.B.7.a Open Space
1. The total preserved open space area within an open space PUD development shall be no less than
50 percent of the total gross land area
2. Land needed for storm water facilities . . . may count toward required open space for the purposes
of open space PUD design, but must ultimately be placed in outlots to be dedicated to the City.
3. Excluding land needed for storm water facilities, not less than 60 percent of the remaining
preserved open space shall be in contiguous parcels which are five acres or more in size.
Section 154.657.B.3 Required Buffer zones. No build zones as follows:
a. 200 feet buffer from all adjacent property lines that abut an existing residential development
or parcel of land not eligible for future development as an open space planned unit
development (Applicable to the south side-west end)
b. If the development site is adjacent to an existing or approved OP development, the required
buffer shall be equivalent to the buffer that was required of the adjacent development
(Applicable to the north side of the site)
Shoreland Regulations
Most of the development site is in the Shoreland Boundary area of Downs Lake. The City has adopted a
shoreland management overlay district (Article 18 of the City Code) that regulates land uses and the
intensity of land uses within the shoreland boundaries of the lakes in Lake Elmo. The purpose of the
Shoreland Overlay District is to preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters and conserve the
economic and natural environmental values of shorelands. This is accomplished by regulating the
placement of improvements and structures and regulating the amount of land alterations and the intensity
of development that may occur in the shoreland management area. The shoreland boundary area and
management overlay district generally extends 1000 feet out from the ordinary high water mark of a
public lake, as determined by the Minnesota DNR.
The following is a listing of the most relevant shoreland regulations for this proposal:
City Council Meeting
July 7, 2020 Page 4
For Unsewered lots – the minimum lot size is 80,000 square feet, the minimum lot width is 200 feet,
maximum impervious surface area allowed on each lot 15 percent
PUD’s – Section 154.800 C 11 Planned Unit Developments. (for PUD’s in a Shoreland Zone)
c. Density: Deviation from the minimum lot size standards of Table 17-3 of this ordinance (for
lot size and lot width) is allowed if the Standards in this section are met.
d. Application for a PUD. The applicant for a PUD must submit the following documents prior
to final action on the request:
1. Property owner’s association agreement with mandatory membership.
2. Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements or other instruments that:
a. Address future vegetative and topographic alterations, construction of additional
buildings
b. Ensure preservation and maintenance of open space in perpetuity in accordance with
the criteria and analysis specified in this ordinance.
e. Design Criteria
General Design Standards.
1. Dwelling units must be clustered into one or more groups and located on suitable areas of
the development.
3. At least 50 percent of the total project acre shall be preserved as open space an meet the
standards in the ordinance.
4. PUDs shall be connected to public water supply and sewer systems. When sewer is not
available, individual septic systems are not allowed; community sewage treatment
systems are required.
h. Open Space Maintenance and Administration Requirements.
Before final approval of a PUD is granted, the development/owner shall provide for the
preservation and maintenance, in perpetuity, of open space and the continuation of the
development as a community.
Development organization and functioning. All planned unit development must use an
owners association with the following features:
1. Membership must be mandatory for each dwelling unit owner and successive owner;
2. Each member must pay a pro rata share of the association’s expenses and unpaid
assessments can become liens on units or dwelling site;
3. Assessments must be adjustable to accommodate changing conditions; and
4. The association must be responsible for insurance, taxes and maintenance of all
commonly owned property and facilities.
Proposed Exceptions and Modifications
One of the reasons the applicant has elected to pursue an OP Planned Unit Development is the
development proposal includes certain elements that do not conform to City requirements, including the
following:
City Council Meeting
July 7, 2020 Page 5
• The proposed street within the project area is shown at 24-feet of width in a 50-foot-wide right-
of-way. As per the City Engineer’s comments, the City should require a 60-foot-wide right-of-
way and a standard width street with concrete curb and gutter.
• The applicant is requesting City approval of several exceptions or modifications to the OP PUD
code or City shoreland standards with this development; These include:
1. Not having a homeowners’ association (HOA) for the 14 lots because the developer is not
proposing to have any commonly owned property with the development.
2. Allowing each home to have its own on-site septic system and drainfields rather than having
a community septic system or systems that would serve several homes. Communal drainfields
also are a requirement of the shoreland ordinance for PUD’s. The applicant also wants the
City to allow drainfields in the open space areas on each lot.
3. Not having commonly owned open space. As an alternative, the developer is requesting the
City allow them to place conservation easements on each lot that would protect the natural
features on the lot in order to meet the open space requirements.
4. Having the storm water ponding area(s) placed on individual lots rather than in a separate
outlot that would become the responsibility of the HOA or City to maintain.
5. Having a reduced buffer from the south property line for construction on the development
site (100 feet instead of 200 feet).
6. Having a rural section road with gravel shoulders and ditches.
7. Having street right-of-way width of 50 feet instead of 60 feet.
8. Having lots with less than 80,000 square feet of lot area and lot widths less than 200 feet as
required by the Shoreland Ordinance.
9. Not having the existing wetland and wetland buffer area in a separate outlot.
After the Planning Commission meeting on May 27, 2020, the project surveyor, Mr. Freeman, submitted
a clarification memo to the City dated June 8, 2020. The purpose of this memo was to outline the specific
requests (especially to City standards) they are making with this OP PUD. I have attached this memo for
your reference. In summary, Mr. Freeman notes:
1. The use of easements as proposed versus outlots for open space and drainage areas as required by
the City. They note that having these public facilities in easements on privately-owned lots will
keep those land areas on the tax rolls. Requiring these areas to be in outlots would effectively kill
the project because of density.
Staff Comment: The City calculates the site density in this case as follows: Site – 32.3 gross
acres – 0.19 acres (wetland) = 32.11 net acres. 14 units divided by 32.11 net acres = 0.44 units
per net acre which is the maximum density allowed in an OP PUD. Having the public features in
separate outlots will require the OP PUD to have smaller lots for each home site than what is
proposed, possibly between 1 and 2 acres each, but would not necessarily lessen the total number
of buildable lots.
Another concern with having the public features as part of privately-owned lots is the
responsibility of maintenance. While having easements over those areas gives the City some
rights to access the areas for maintenance purposes, it has been City practice to have the ponding
areas and wetlands in separate outlots to ensure complete City access to them for maintenance
and also so the burden of maintenance does not fall upon an individual property owner.
City Council Meeting
July 7, 2020 Page 6
2. Shoreland standards. This site is within the shoreland management area of Downs Lake but it is
not adjacent to the lake and in fact most of the site is at least 500 feet from the edge of the water.
The developer is concerned that if the City requires the project to meet all City development
standards as listed in the shoreland ordinance that it would cause a severe reduction in density.
Staff Comment: It appears the applicant is referring to the requirements about having a
community septic system or systems that would serve several homes that would require a
homeowners’ association. Communal drainfields are a requirement of the shoreland ordinance for
PUD’s. The applicant also wants the City to allow drainfields in the open space areas on each lot.
It is not clear to City staff how the shoreland ordinance requirements regarding a community
septic system would change the number of lots but adhering to these requirements probably
would require the development to have smaller privately-owned lots with common areas for the
communal septic system and for the required open space. This redesign may cause a reduction in
the number of home sites, but City staff cannot make this determination.
3. Reduced buffer. The developer is asking to have 100-foot buffer to the properties to the south
rather than a 200-foot buffer as required by the Code.
Staff Comment: If the area between the existing and proposed houses has significant trees for
screening, the reduced buffer should not negatively affect the existing homes to the south.
4. Trees and tree planting. The developer agrees to plant boulevard or street trees as part of its
improvements but it wants the City to allow the planting of trees to occur on the individual lots
with home construction instead of in conjunction with the development of the property. This
would allow the individual homeowners to choose the species of trees and to plant them with
their site and landscape designs.
Staff comment: The down side of this plan is that it will take longer for the City to finalize the
landscape inspections in order to be able to reduce the letter of credit or escrow when compared
to if the developer planted all the required trees as part of its initial site improvements.
5. City Engineer’s report. Mr. Freeman lists several items and requirements in his memo that the
City Engineer is recommending as conditions of approval for the PUD. For each of these listed
items, the developer is proposing an alternative plan or design.
Staff comment: At this point, City staff would recommend that the City Council require the
developer to meet all the conditions and standards as recommended by the City Engineer.
If the City Council wishes to allow the developer to proceed with exceptions or modifications from any
these requirements, then City staff would request the City Council provide City staff and the developer
clear guidance as to which City standards to require and which standards or design elements may be
modified as the project moves forward.
By recommending approval of the PUD Concept Plan as prepared by the applicant, the Planning
Commission also was recommending approval of all the exceptions and modifications described above.
As noted in the recommendations, City staff are not recommending approval of all the applicant’s
requested exceptions or modifications. Such exceptions or modifications to the standards in the OP
Ordinance are only possible with a super majority vote (4/5) of the City Council per Section 154.657 of
the OP Code. The Code also notes that “[a]uthorization of such modifications resulting from a PUD
City Council Meeting
July 7, 2020 Page 7
concept review shall not be construed as approvals for the changes, but rather as an authorization to
present such modifications as a component of the [PUD] plan during the PUD Preliminary Plan review.”
Staff is suggesting that the developer include all requested exceptions and modifications to the shoreland
and OP PUD standards and any other variations to City development requirements in a separate PUD
planning document at the preliminary platting/PUD stage of the project.
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS:
Members of the Planning, Public Works, and Fire Departments have reviewed the OP PUD concept plan,
while the City Engineer and the City’s Landscape Architect have provided additional reviews of the OP
PUD Concept Plans. Staff has completed an internal review of the concept plan and general comments
from Staff and recommended conditions of approval are included in this memorandum.
The Staff review comments that follow are all based on conducting a high level review of the concept
plan since there is not a lot of detailed information that is required at this stage in the development review
process. Staff has instead focused on the bigger picture items and those things that would otherwise not
allow the development to move forward if they are not consistent with elements from the Comprehensive
Plan, the Zoning Code, the Shoreland Regulations, City Engineering Standards or the OP PUD Code.
There are several issues and details that will need to be resolved for the proposed project to move
forward. As noted below, Staff is recommending approval of the OP PUD concept plan with several
conditions of approval to address the most significant outstanding issues. Staff has provided comments in
following section to identify elements of the plan that need to be further addressed by the applicant before
proceeding with an application for preliminary PUD/plat approval.
The Staff comments for this project are as follows:
Site Data and Density Analysis. The proposed development includes lots for 14 dwelling units. The
applicant’s data shows the site with a total of 32.3 acres (including right-of-way for the new street with no
proposed parkland or any arterial street (Manning Avenue) right-of-way).
The City calculates the site density in this case as follows: Site – 32.3 gross acres – 0.19 acres (wetland)
= 32.11 net acres. 14 units divided by 32.11 net acres = 0.44 units per net acre which is the maximum
density allowed in an OP PUD.
PUD Minimum Requirements. Most of the proposed development is within the shoreland of Downs
Lake and is therefore subject to Shoreland regulations. Within a shoreland, development lots must
conform to the shoreland standards contained in the Zoning Code, Section 154.800, Table 17-3, or
develop as a Planned Unit Development with a Conditional Use Permit. A PUD is a negotiated zoning
district, and according to the Lake Elmo Zoning Code Article 19, Planned Unit Development Regulations,
or Article 15, Open Space Planned Unit Developments. Through the PUD review and approval process
the City may grant development and zoning flexibility in order to better protect and use site features and
to obtain a higher quality of development.
When the City evaluates an OP PUD proposal, the City must determine if the proposed OP PUD meets
the purpose and intent of open space PUD’s as listed in Sections 154.650 and 154.651. These include
providing greater development flexibility within the rural portions of the community while maintaining
the rural character by preserving agricultural land, woodlands, wildlife or natural corridors and other
significant natural features consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
City Council Meeting
July 7, 2020 Page 8
Section 154.651 outlines the City’s intent for OP PUDs. It states “that open space PUD’s will offer
needed development flexibility within the Agricultural, Rural Residential and Rural Estate zoning
districts to provide for:
1. A variety of lot configurations and housing styles that may not otherwise exist with the City’s
rural areas;
2. An avenue to provide a development density equal to or greater than what could be achieved via
the underlying zoning;
3. A reduction in the costs to construct and maintain public facilities and infrastructure in a rural
setting;
4. Protected open space to enhance and preserve the natural character of the community; and
5. The creation of distinct neighborhoods that are interconnected within rural areas; and
6. To preserve large contiguous open spaces.”
Minimum Requirements for OP PUD:
a. Lot Area. The site area exceeds the minimum lot area and potentially achieves the following OP
PUD purpose and intent as identified in Sections 154.650 and 154.651.
b. OP-PUD Purpose. Providing greater development flexibility within the rural portions of the
community while maintaining the rural character by preserving agricultural land, woodlands,
wildlife or natural corridors and other significant natural features consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Comment: The proposed Concept Plan meets the purpose of an OP PUD by maintaining
the rural character of the area with a site-sensitive design that will preserve many trees, the
woodlands and the natural corridors on the property.
c. OP PUD Intent. Open space PUD’s will offer needed development flexibility within the
Agricultural, Rural Residential and Rural Estate zoning districts to provide for:
1. A variety of lot configurations and housing styles that may not otherwise exist with the
City’s rural areas;
2. An avenue to provide a development density equal to or greater than what could be
achieved via the underlying zoning;
3. A reduction in the costs to construct and maintain public facilities and infrastructure in a
rural setting;
4. Protected open space to enhance and preserve the natural character of the community;
and
5. The creation of distinct neighborhoods that are interconnected within rural areas;
Staff Comment: The proposed Concept Plan meets the intent of the OP PUD ordinance by
having a variety of lot configurations while protecting open space to enhance and preserve
the natural character of the area.
Open Space. The OP PUD ordinance requires that at least 50 percent of the total gross land area in an
OP PUD be preserved as open space. The ordinance also requires that not less than 60 percent of the
remaining preserved open space be in contiguous parcels that are five acres or more in size and that the
preserved open space parcels be contiguous with preserved open space or public park land on adjacent
parcels. The Shoreland Ordinance also requires PUDs in the shoreland district of a lake to have at least
City Council Meeting
July 7, 2020 Page 9
50 percent of the total project area be preserved as open space. For the 32.3-acre site, the minimum
amount of open space the developer must preserve is 16.15 acres.
The intent of these regulations is to preserve the appearance and function of open space area, including
the topography and vegetation within those areas. The Shoreland Ordinance also requires the
developer/owner to provide for the preservation and maintenance in perpetuity of open space and the
continuation of the development as a community. These requirements are usually met by the formation
of a homeowners’ association (HOA) with documents that define the roles and responsibilities of the
HOA for all properties in the development including the open space area.
The OP PUD Concept Plan submitted by the developer proposes to preserve about 15.6 acres of open
space in the development (0.55 acres less than the required 16.15 acres) by dedicating conservation
easements on parts of each lots for the areas that would be preserved as open space. The developer is
proposing this method of preservation rather than having the open space in separate commonly owned
parcels within the development. Some of this land also would be used for some of the subdivision’s
storm water facilities and possibly for septic system drainfields. Since these areas would be privately
owned, they would not be available for public use and enjoyment. Therefore, this proposal appears
contrary to the concept of preserving open space for the public to use and enjoy.
Natural Resource Areas. Preservation of the most sensitive ecological areas is one of the goals of
this development. The Concept Plan shows one new street through the site that generally follows the
existing contours and allows for the placement of new houses on lots that would minimize the need
for site grading and would preserve many of the existing trees on the property.
Street Layout. The OP PUD ordinance places importance in street design that minimizes site
disruption and is respectful of the existing conditions. The ordinance requires a design that locates
streets in a manner that maintains and preserves natural topography and trees, minimizes cut and fill,
provides adequate access for fire and rescue vehicles and assures adequate vehicular circulation both
within the development and with adjacent neighborhoods. The OP PUD ordinance also requires the
design of streets and the dedication of right-of-way to be in compliance with the City’s standard plans
and specifications.
Staff Comment: The site of the proposed PUD development has limited options for street
connections and street layout. The proposed street plan connects a new street running through the
site between Manning Avenue and the south end of Lisbon Avenue and includes a street stub to
the south where future subdivision may occur. This street design is respectful of the existing site
conditions while providing adequate access for emergency services vehicles and vehicular
circulation within the PUD and for existing and future neighborhoods.
Shoreland Tier Analysis. Most of the development site is within the shoreland of Downs Lake.
Because the proposed lots in the development do not conform to the base dimensional standards for
lot width and lot area as required by the shoreland district, the Code requires City approval of a PUD
for the proposed subdivision. The purpose of PUDs in the Shoreland District are “to protect and
enhance the natural and scenic qualities of shoreland areas during and after development and
redevelopment of high-density residential uses.” In general, the proposed Concept OP PUD should
meet the purpose of a PUD development in the shoreland of a lake – subject to changes and
conditions of approval as outlined in this report.
The Code also requires the developer to provide a shoreland tier analysis (for calculating density).
This will be required with any future preliminary plat and preliminary PUD Plans submittal.
City Council Meeting
July 7, 2020 Page 10
Furthermore, the shoreland ordinance requires that 50% of the shoreland area be preserved as open
space with a conservation easement. This will be a recommended condition of approval. City staff
provided the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (the “DNR”) with the Concept Plan and
project narrative for comment, but the City has not yet received any comments from the DNR. As
part of the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD Plans, the developer will be required to provide the
City a shoreland tiering analysis.
Lot Sizes and Widths. The minimum lot width for an unsewered lot in the shoreland of Downs Lake
is 200 feet, and in the OP PUD the minimum width is 200 feet. The minimum lot size for an unsewered
lot in the shoreland of Downs Lake is 80,000 sq. ft. and in the RR District, 10 acres. The developer is
proposing the following deviations from setbacks and lot area:
RR Proposed
Minimum lot width 300 feet 110 - 515 feet
Minimum lot area 10 acres 1-4 acres
The Concept PUD plans identify a range of 110 feet to 515 feet for the proposed lot widths and lots
sizes between 1.26 acres to 4.32 acres for the 14 lots.
Setbacks. The setbacks for single-family homes in the OP PUD District are:
Front – 30 feet
House side – 15 feet or 10% of the lot width
Garage side – 15 feet
Corner side--30 feet
Rear – 20 feet
Setback from County Roads – 50 feet
The developer is proposing the following setbacks:
Front yard – 30 feet
Front yard/Side loaded garages – 15 feet
Side yard -15 feet
Rear yard -20 feet
Side yard corner lot - 30 feet
Setback from Manning Avenue - 100 feet (estimated)
The typical side yard setback in the RR and RS rural zoning districts is 10 feet for the principal building
and for the garage. The typical front yard setback in the rural zoning districts is 30-100 feet.
The current proposal shows generalized house pads on each lot. The City will want to ensure there is
enough room for utilities (with room for two septic systems), drainage, parking, landscaping and other
requirements on each lot. The City Engineer has indicated that the City would need a detailed right-of-
way/utility easement design layout that shows/demonstrates all infrastructure is being adequately
accommodated, and in addition all other City requirements are being met.
Impervious Surfaces. The maximum allowed impervious surface on an unsewered lot within the shoreland
of Downs Lake is 15 percent and in an OP PUD, the maximum impervious limit is 20 percent of the land
area not dedicated as preserved open space. The developer has not yet calculated or estimated the amount
of impervious surface within the development or on each lot. The City should require these calculations
with an application for preliminary PUD/plat for this site.
City Council Meeting
July 7, 2020 Page 11
Easements. The City requires 10-foot-wide drainage and utility easements along all public rights-of-ways
and rear property lines, 5-foot-wide easements along the side property lines and easements for stormwater
management and public utilities as needed. The City should require the applicant to show all required and
necessary easements on the preliminary and final PUD plans.
Parks. The Comprehensive Park Plan has not identified any future park facilities in the area of this
development. The Developer is not proposing any publicly-owned park facilities with this PUD. The park
dedication requirement for a 32.3 acre development is 3.23 acres of parkland, or a combination of parkland
or fees in lieu of parkland. The developer, in its narrative, suggests that the City may prefer a cash in lieu
payment instead a land dedication to meet this requirement. The Parks Commission, on June 15th, 2020
was expected to vote on accepting fees in lieu of parkland dedication. The Park Commission did not have
quorum for that meeting, so it did not make a formal recommendation about the park dedication
requirements for this proposal.
Sidewalks and Trails. The City’s standard street detail requires a 6 foot wide concrete public sidewalk be
constructed on one side of any public local residential street. To accommodate a sidewalk and a City street,
the standard right-of-way width is 60 feet wide. The developer has shown on the concept plans an eight-
foot-wide trail along the north side of the street running through the development. A trail in this location
is not consistent with the City’s trail plans. The plans also show a 50-foot-wide right-of-way for the new
street. This is 10 feet narrower than the current City standard local residential street right-of-way of 60
feet.
Trails. The Lake Elmo Comprehensive Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan identifies Manning Avenue as
the location for an on-street bike route. This type of trail or route is often accomplished by striping the
paved shoulder of the road to designate the travel area available for pedestrians and bikers. Washington
County noted in its project review comments that its long-range plans for Manning Avenue include a
pedestrian trail along the west side of the road. The City Engineer is recommending that the City require
the developer to install a 10-foot-wide trail in the frontage along Manning Avenue as part of the
development of this site.
As noted above, the Parks Commission was scheduled to review the parks and trails needs with this
development at its June 15, 2020 meeting, but did not as it did not have a quorum for its meeting.
Subdivision Signs. Section 154.212 allows one sign per entrance of a residential development with a
maximum sign area of 32 square feet for the main entrance and 24 square feet for all other signs. No signs
have been proposed.
Streets. The developer is proposing 50-foot-wide public street rights-of-ways with 24-foot-wide wide
streets (back to back) with no curbing and ditches for drainage and storm water management. As part of
this development, the developer should provide right-of-way and a constructed street stub to allow for
vehicle connectivity to the property south of this development (see the City Engineer’s memorandum dated
May 20, 2020) to accommodate potential future development.
• City Street Standards. The streets as proposed do not meet the minimum requirements and
standards for residential streets, and in particular, the City’s typical cross section for such streets.
The streets as depicted on the concept plan range are shown at 24 feet wide with no curbs and
ditches for drainage and storm water management. The City’s typical section calls for a 28 foot
wide street with concrete curb and gutter or at a minimum a concrete edge to allow parking on
one side of the street.
City Council Meeting
July 7, 2020 Page 12
• Manning Avenue - State Highway 95 Access. The project includes a new road access to
Manning Avenue near the center of the property. This access point for the new street has been
approved by Washington County. The concept plan does eliminate an existing access driveway
that connects directly to Manning Avenue (old Highway 95). This driveway would be rerouted to
the new local street within the proposed PUD. As condition of their approval, Washington County
will be requiring the developer to construct a right turn lane for southbound traffic and center left
turn lane for northbound traffic on Manning Avenue for the intersection with the new street.
• Lisbon Avenue Access. The developer will need to construct the new road connecting the
development with the Heritage Farms neighborhood to the north as part of the public
improvements associated with the project. This connection will include reconstructing part of
Lisbon Avenue to meet current City standards for a divided one-way street.
• Stub Street to South. Then concept plans show a stub street right-of-way going from the new
street in the development to the southern property line of the site. This future street is intended to
provide public street access to the property to south. The developer is proposing to plat this street
right-of-way but not construct the street. It is City policy for developers to build all streets and
public infrastructure within their project sites with their developments and not leave those
improvements for someone else to construct in the future.
• Manning Avenue right-of-way. Washington County is requesting the City require the developer
to dedicate 30 feet of additional right-of-way for Manning Avenue and to provide turn lanes
according to County requirements. The Manning Avenue right-of-way requirement is 90 feet
from the centerline and according to the County, there is now 60 feet of right of way. The
developer will need to dedicate an additional 30 feet of right-of-way for Manning Avenue on the
preliminary and final plats to meet this requirement.
Tree Preservation. There are three primary areas of trees on the property including a double row of trees
along Manning Avenue and a row of trees along the east side of the pipeline easement. The developer has
not yet provided the City with a tree preservation plan for the site. The developer has designed the project
to preserve most of these trees by minimizing areas of grading and street construction and it wants to
allow custom home placement and grading on each lot to maximize the number of trees that will be
preserved.
Landscaping. The applicant has not provided any details concerning landscaping for the site, which
must be submitted at the time of preliminary plat/PUD submission. The Concept Plan notes that the
developer proposes to plant boulevard trees as required by the City Code but wants to place them in
clusters rather placing one tree for every 30 feet along the new street. The City’s Landscape Architect
Lucius Jonett has reviewed the Concept Plan and provided the City with a review memo dated May 6,
2020. In his memo he noted several concerns and changes to the plans that he would recommend. These
include:
1. That the applicant submit a landscape plan for the PUD showing the 10 proposed trees per
building site. The Open Space PUD standards do not state that any preserved trees will account
for the required trees per building site.
2. That the PUD code requires the 200 foot buffer to the south property line and not the 100 feet as
proposed by the applicant. He recommends the City require the developer to meet the 200 foot
buffer requirement. If the City approves the 100-foot-wide buffer, then City should require the
developer plant evergreen trees along and near the south property line of the project site to
provide a visual barrier between properties.
City Council Meeting
July 7, 2020 Page 13
The applicant also will need to submit a landscape plan that shows 10 existing or proposed trees per
building lot, with the intension of providing the required trees per City standards, and a landscape plan
showing the 64 required boulevard trees. These required boulevard trees are in addition to any trees
required to meet the 10 tree per lot requirements.
Wetlands/Buffers. There is an existing 0.19 acre wetland in the northern center of the development area
shown to be partially within three of the proposed residential lots. The proposed concept plan shows several
lots (Lots 1, 2 and 4, Block 1) that would impact or encroach into the wetland and wetland buffer. The City
requires wetlands and wetland buffers to be fully contained within outlots, outside of lot areas. It has been
the City’s policy to not allow wetland within platted lots.
In addition, the Valley Branch Watershed District has buffering requirements for the wetlands depending
on the wetland type and size. It has been the City’s policy to keep wetland buffers out of platted lots, as
they are not properly maintained when on individual properties. When considering the Concept Plan, it is
critical for the developer to plan the site in a manner that accounts for the wetland and the required buffers.
Staff suggests that the developer engage with the Watershed District about the buffering requirements and
incorporate these in any future plan revisions.
City Engineer Review. The City Engineer has submitted comments as outlined in the attached letter.
The Engineer is recommending the developer submit revised concept plans for additional City review
before the City accepts an application for preliminary PUD/plat due to extensive changes that are needed
to address the requirements of Washington County and to meet City design standards and requirements.
Stormwater Management. The developer has not yet prepared a stormwater management plan for the
project but the concept plans do show an area for stormwater ponding near the center of the site near the
south property line and to the east of the stub street. The City Engineer’s memorandum addresses general
stormwater management considerations that will be required as part of this development. The storm
water management plan for this PUD will need to meet City ordinances and Valley Branch Watershed
District standards. He noted that he would need to see additional details before commenting on any
proposed storm water management plan, and in particular, questioned how storm water runoff would be
directed and controlled by the applicant.
Storm Water Ponds. In accordance with the City’s Engineering and Design Standards, all storm water
basins and facilities must be located on an outlot dedicated to the City. The developer will need to design
the pond to City standards including having access to these ponds to allow for future maintenance.
Municipal Sewer and Water. The City Engineer’s memorandum provides a review of municipal sewer
and water considerations. Municipal sewer is not available to the site and the developer is requesting to
have on-site septic systems on each property. The OP PUD Code, however, requires OP developments to
have a shared community septic system.
Individual Septic Systems. The proposed Concept OP PUD would have a septic system and drainfield
on each lot rather than having a community sewage treatment or septic system. The applicant also wants
the City to allow drainfields in the open space areas on each lot. It has made this request to give it
flexibility in siting the drainfields on each property. Locating individual treatment systems on the open
space calls into to question the purpose of the open space. Is the open space to be preserved and enjoyed
by all or is it serve at least in part as a large drainfield area? The Shoreland Ordinance requires
developments to use community sewage treatment systems when City sanitary sewer is not available.
City Council Meeting
July 7, 2020 Page 14
If the City approves the use of individual on-site septic systems in this development, the developer must
show on the future project plans a primary and a secondary site for the septic system for each lot and both
systems must be fully located on the lot it serves (not in common areas).
Municipal Water. The developer is proposing to extend City water through the property along the new
street from the south end of Lisbon Avenue to Manning Avenue. The City Engineer is recommending this
development have two connection points to the existing watermain system to prevent a long dead end
pipe for the watermain. The second watermain connection should be made to Lisbon Court North of the
east side of the Heritage Farms subdivision. He also is recommending that the developer install a
watermain lateral stub to the south property line in the stub street and another lateral stub be installed to
the south property line for future extension of City water along Lisbon Avenue. In addition, the City
Engineer is recommending the developer complete a water service study to analyze system capacity and
pressures for serving the subdivision.
Fire Chief Review. The Fire Chief has asked that the roads within the development be designed in
accordance with Minnesota Fire Code standards and City standards.
Street Name. The City should require the new street to be called 26th Street North to be consistent with
the street naming pattern in this area.
Subdivision Review Process. In order to proceed with the subdivision of the land included in the
concept plan, the applicant will need to prepare a preliminary plat/PUD application and plans. At this
stage there is much more information required as part of that submission process, which also requires a
public hearing.
Neighbor comments: The City received e-mails about the proposed concept plan from 16 nearby
property owners. Many of those who commented live on Lisbon Avenue north of the development site in
the Heritage Farms neighborhood. These neighbors all expressed concerns about having Lisbon Avenue
connected to this development because of the potential for increased traffic in their neighborhood (safety
of pedestrians, the quiet nature of the neighborhood and streets now, increased wear on the old streets).
They also questioned the need to connect their neighborhood to Manning Avenue – many thought having
one entrance/access point for their neighborhood was sufficient.
I also received comments from three neighbors to the south of the development site that were generally
supportive of the proposed OP PUD. Two of these property owners requested there be adequate screening
installed between the existing homes and the new development – possibly by having the developer plant
evergreen trees near the south property line.
OPTIONS:
The City Council is asked to examine the proposed OP PUD Concept Plan and provide guidance to the
applicant on if and how to proceed. Keep in mind that a conditional approval at this point simply allows
the applicant to proceed to the preliminary PUD plan stage, and does NOT carry with it any assurances of
future success or approvals. Denial of the concept plan at this point will require the applicant to reassess
the development approach and return with a revised/new concept plan for City review and approval
before proceeding to a preliminary PUD plan.
City Council Meeting
July 7, 2020 Page 15
The City Council has the following options:
A) APPROVAL of the requested OP Concept Plan based on the applicant’s submission, the contents
of this report, public testimony and other evidence available to the City Council. This approval
would require the City Council to approve by a 4/5 vote some or all of the modifications as
requested by the developer. (See Number 2 below).
B) DENIAL of the requested OP Concept Plan based on the applicant's submission, the contents of this
report, public testimony and other evidence available to the Council.
C) TABLE the request for further study.
Per the City Code, the concept plan is simply an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan showing the
basic intent and general nature of the entire development, and there are no specific criteria to guide approval or
denial of a concept plan. Staff would recommend using the following as a guide for discussion.
(1) Has the applicant demonstrated that the proposal fulfills the intent for OP PUDs and at least one
of the identified reasons listed in Section 154.651 to permit development as an OP PUD?
a. If NO, deny the concept plan and provide findings to support the denial. Further review of the plan
details would become unnecessary, so the City would not need to take any further action on this
application.
b. If YES, proceed to the next review point.
(2) What exceptions or modifications from the City Code are acceptable to the City Council with this
OP PUD and what changes to the plans would applicant need to make with any future
preliminary PUD submittal before the City could accept it for review and possible approval?
Approval to proceed should be conditioned upon the applicant addressing the issues and conditions as
documented in the staff report, and other items or matters as listed by the City Council. The approval of
exceptions or modifications to the City Code for this OP PUD requires City Council approval by a 4/5
vote for each exception or modification. (Staff is not recommending approval of any of the requested
exceptions or modifications).
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the OP PUD Concept Plan proposed by
Bruggeman Builders based on the above comments and analysis and the following review criteria and
findings (from Section 154.660 of the City Code):
1. That the proposed OP PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of
the Comprehensive Plan.
2. That the proposed OP PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the purpose and intent of OP PUDs in
Lake Elmo by:
a. Providing greater development flexibility while maintaining the rural character by preserving
agricultural land, woodlands, wildlife or natural corridors and other significant natural
features.
b. Providing for:
City Council Meeting
July 7, 2020 Page 16
1. An avenue to provide a development density equal to or greater than what could be
achieved via the underlying zoning;
2. A reduction in the costs to construct and maintain public facilities and infrastructure in a
rural setting;
3. Protecting open space to enhance and preserve the natural character of the community;
4. The creation of distinct neighborhoods that are interconnected within rural areas;
5. The preservation of large contiguous open spaces.
3. That the proposed OP PUD concept plan meets the prerequisites for open space PUDs as outlined
in Section 154.655 of the City Code (existing zoning, 20 acre minimum site and the sites in single
ownership or control).
4. That all open space PUD design standards and all open space development standards (as outlined
in Section 154.660 of the City Code) are met; or if deviations are proposed, that all such
deviations are supported because they achieve the following three goals:
The deviations allow for a higher quality building and site design that will enhance aesthetics of
the site.
The deviations help to create a more unified environment within the project boundaries by
ensuring one of more of the following: architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient
vehicular and pedestrian circulation, enhanced landscaping and site features and/or efficient use
of utilities;
The overall design provides appropriate solutions to eliminate adverse impacts that propose
deviations may impose on surrounding lands.
5. That the OP PUD Concept Plan generally complies with the City’s Subdivision regulations.
6. That the OP PUD Concept Plan is generally consistent with the City’s engineering standards with
exceptions as noted in the City Engineer’s memorandum dated May 20, 2020.
7. That the OP PUD Concept Plan meets the minimum requirements for an OP PUD including
minimum lot area and street layout.
8. That the OP PUD Concept Plan will preserve and enhance important environmental features
through careful and sensitive placement of buildings and facilities.
Recommended Conditions of Approval. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the OP PUD Concept Plan as proposed by Bruggeman Builders for the property located at 2500
Manning Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the future preliminary plat and preliminary OP PUD Plans includes the parcel with the PID#
24-029-21-13-0002.
2. That the future preliminary plat and preliminary OP PUD Plans submittal identify all requests for
flexibility or modifications from the OP PUD Development and Shoreland PUD standards.
3. That before submitting an application to the City for preliminary PUD plan/plat approval, the
developer revise the OP PUD concept plans to address the recommended changes and to allow
for additional City review.
4. That any future preliminary PUD plan/plat submittal address all comments from the City
Engineer in the letter to the City dated May 20, 2020. In particular, the preliminary development
City Council Meeting
July 7, 2020 Page 17
plans must address the street right-of-way width, street and trail design standards and storm water
management in the subdivision.
5. That any future preliminary PUD plan/plat submittal address all comments from the City
Landscape Architect in the letter to the City dated May 6, 2020. In particular, the preliminary
PUD landscaping plans must address the preservation and planting of trees and the required
screening within the development – especially to the properties to the south.
6. That the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans submittal include a landscape, screening and
buffering plan to address the requirements of the City Landscape Architect and City open space
overlay area requirements.
7. The proposed street providing a connection to the property to the south must be included as part
of the improvement and construction plans for the PUD.
8. The developer must work with the property owner immediately to the south of the proposed
subdivision concerning the alignment of the proposed future street to their property.
9. That a shoreland tier analysis be provided with the future preliminary plat and preliminary PUD
plans submittal.
10. That the preliminary PUD plans show at least 50 percent of the gross acreage of the development
site as protected open space.
11. That any preliminary PUD/plat approval be contingent on complying with Washington County’s
requirements and requests regarding the need for additional right-of-way, turn lanes and trails in
and along Manning Avenue.
12. That the applicant shall secure all necessary permits from Washington County for the proposed
access off of Manning Avenue North and for any work occurring in the Manning Avenue right-
of-way.
13. That the developer provide trails and sidewalks as recommended by the City Engineer and the
Parks Commission.
14. That all public trails and sidewalks must be located outside of storm water ponding areas and
wetland buffer zones.
15. That all wetlands and wetland buffer areas be contained on outlots outside of lot areas.
16. That all storm water retention and infiltration areas must be dedicated to the City and platted as
outlots on the preliminary and final plat unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer.
17. That all open space areas be platted in separate outlots to be commonly owned and managed by a
homeowners’ association.
18. That the developer provide fees in lieu of park land dedication as required by Section 153.14 with
future final plat.
19. That the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans comply with any comments or requirements
provided by the DNR.
20. The developer must submit a detailed PUD plan as part of any future preliminary PUD
development plans. The PUD plan shall include a detailed listing of all requested departures or
modifications from City ordinances, shoreland regulations and development standards.
21. The developer must prepare a plan for ownership and management of the proposed open space
and conservation areas as part of preliminary PUD plans.
22. That the developer revise the PUD plans to show the location of a community septic system as
required by the Shoreland Ordinance.
City Council Meeting
July 7, 2020 Page 18
RECOMMENDATION:
City staff and the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the proposed OP
PUD Concept Plan for the property located 2500 Manning Avenue as proposed by Bruggeman
Builders with the following motion and the recommended conditions of approval as outlined in
the staff report.
“Motion to adopt Resolution 2020 – 074 approving the OP PUD Concept Plan as requested by
Paul Bruggeman of Bruggeman Builders for PID# 24-029-21-13-0002 for the property located
at 2500 Manning Avenue North subject to recommended conditions of approval as outlined in
the staff report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application Narrative dated April 28, 2020
2. Location Map
3. Property Line Map
4. Contour/Address Map
5. Wetland Delineation Map
6. Area Map around Downs Lake with Concept PUD Plan
7. Concept PUD Plan
8. City Engineer’s Report dated May 20, 2020
9. Washington County review memo dated May 15, 2020
10. Lucius Jonett review comments dated May 6, 2020
11. Clarification Narrative from Tim Freeman dated June 8, 2020
12. Resolution 2020 - 074
12445 55th Street North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 * Phone: 651-439-8833 * Website: FFSurveying.com
Bruce A. Folz, LS Timothy J. Freeman, LS
1939 – 2001 Principal
April 28, 2020
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Concept Plan
OPEN SPACE PUD
The subject property is located in the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 24. Bounded on the
north by the Heritage Farm open space development; on the east by Manning Avenue North (CSAH 15)
with West Lakeland Township east of Manning; on the south (east portion) by a single family Rural
Residential parcel; on the south (west portion) by a single family RE zoned project EDEN PARK; and on
the west by a single family Rural Residential parcel.
The property is 32.27 acres and is mostly open, rolling and used for agricultural with one single family
home occupied presently by the property owners Gary and Meg Johnson. For years their small farm has
grown vegetables for sale at a local stand at the end of their driveway. The land also features two
drainageways for water from the north to drain southerly toward Downs Lake. There is one small wetland
area (0.19 acres) in the northern part of the easterly drainageway that is shown on the plan and it has been
delineated and verified by Valley Branch Watershed District.
There is a heavy stand of pine trees providing screening from Manning Avenue. There are several rows of
trees that have been planted by the property owners to provide screening along the pipeline route and the
southerly property line. There is a nearly continuous row of screening trees along the north line, the
westerly line and southerly line of the property. The screening of mature existing trees is proposed to be
preserved with the new conservation easements. This should more that cover the 10 trees per lot required
in the Open Space PUD ordinance.
The architecture of the neighborhood will be controlled by City Code as well as in the PUD overlay
ordinance for this development. Similar building components, materials and roof pitches should be
maintained. The architectural styles should extend to the outbuildings on each lot, requiring them to look
similar with similar colors and materials to compliment the main home.
The land is guided RAD in the Lake Elmo Comprehensive plan. The zoning is RR Rural Residential.
The property is also in the Shoreland District. The Valley Branch Watershed district regulates the surface
water, wetland and runoff for this area. The property is served by the Stillwater Area School District 834.
Manning Avenue North (CSAH 15) is a major traffic route from the eastern portion of Lake Elmo and
various other communities to the north and east of the site.
Traffic on Manning Avenue is connected from Highway 36 on the north to Interstate Highway 94 on the
south, and beyond down to Hastings. The Washington County Highway Department regulates traffic,
entrances and upgrades on Manning Avenue. The Highway Department has been consulted extensively
on the concept layout and street access point. They are supportive of the street access and location, with
some conditions. The first condition is that the existing driveway on Manning Avenue would be removed
and changed to access the new street. The second condition is to provide access to the property to the
4/28/2020
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Page 2 of 4
south to insure there will not be another request to access Manning Avenue when that property is
developed. They also require that turn lanes and bypass be provided for safety of the intersection. This
new street connection to Manning Avenue will provide a much needed second access for the Heritage
Farm neighborhood, as it was proposed and was a requirement of that development when it was built.
Currently there are 36 homes that only have one access point. When Heritage Farm was platted there was
an alternate access for Lisbon Avenue to be connected on the south side of this property to the street
platted in Eden Park. The north end of the street in Eden Park was vacated by petition of the adjoining
property owners to the City Council. The access to Manning is now the only alternative outlet at this
point.
This property is eligible for and proposed as an Open Space Planned Unit Development. This project
features 14 single family home sites as allowed in the Open Space PUD ordinance. Lot sizes range from
1.26 acres up to 4.32 acres. The new street right of way is proposed as a 50-foot-wide right of way with
additional 10-foot-wide Drainage and Utility Easements on each side. There is just over 1900 lineal feet
of new street to be built as a 24-foot-wide rural section street with gravel shoulders and an 8-feet-wide
bituminous trail on the north side of the street. The property is served with City water from the north in
Heritage Farm. The new homes sites will all have individual on-site septic tanks with individual drain-
fields. The proposed impervious surface is at just under 10% with homes, driveways and street/trail.
As was allowed in almost all the Open Space Preservation developments of the past, we request that the
individual drainfield portion of the septic systems be allowed in the open space areas. We are looking for
maximum flexibility in siting the drainfields, seeing as the adjoining properties have had some troubles
with soil suitability for drainfields. The drainfields are not an above ground feature of the lot and will
grow to be nearly invisible once the vegetation is established. The Shoreland Ordinance requires that
drainfields be communal… and we are asking to vary from this requirement to allow individual
drainfields.
The property will have over 50% of the lot area reserved as open space, covered with conservation
easements proposed to be held by the City of Lake Elmo. The open space will be owned and maintained
by the individual lot owners, subject to the conservation easement for the City. The City will not have any
responsibility for the open space areas… other than to be the entity that holds the easements. The
easements will run with the land and be recorded against the lots in perpetuity. The purpose of the open
space will be to preserve the land as passive open space with wildlife habitat. A plan will be submitted
which will indicate how he land will be maintained. The individual homeowners will be responsible for
the plan implementation on their area of the open space. There will not be a CIC declaration nor
Homeowners Association for the development. The open space is contiguous with the open space and
City Park created in the Heritage Farm open space development f rom the late 1990s. The open space in
this project surrounds the entire property and includes the areas of the drainageways. The open space
areas are contiguous throughout the project, except for the street/trail crossings. The open space area
protects the existing trees that are crucial to screening this development from Manning Avenue and the
adjoining properties.
The existing mature trees more than account for the required 10 trees per lot. We will encourage the new
lot owners to plant trees as a part of their individual landscaping plans. They can select their own tree
4/28/2020
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Page 3 of 4
species and plant them in the preferred locations on their lots. Trees planted by the property owners have
a better chance of thriving… as the owners will have a heightened sense of ownership because they
planted them. We anticipate planting the required boulevard trees, one every 30 lineal feet in clusters that
make the most sense. That is 1917 lineal feet of street divided by 30 feet spacing is 64 trees. This will be
a nice beginning compliment to the landscape plans of the new homeowners in this neighborhood.
It is envisioned that the only area of storm water ponding would be at the very south end of th e main
drainageway, before it exits towards Downs Lake to the south, as it always has. We propose to cover this
drainageway and ponding area with easements instead of creating an Outlot for the pond. This will keep
the property on the tax roll and the individual lot owner would maintain the vegetation while allowing the
City and Watershed District access to the pond.
There will be a 50 foot wide street right of way dedicated to the property south of this project. This street
right of way will be adjacent to the ponding area. The property to the south is also eligible for an Open
Space PUD development. This will provide a street access, as opposed to having another street entrance
on Manning Avenue. This is one of the conditions required by the Washington County Highway
Department. The property owners to the south have been consulted… and they have no interest in
developing their property at this time. The street would not be built until such time as the property to the
south is developed.
The buffers are as follows: The east property line is the right of way of Manning Avenue North, no buffer
required. The north line is a border with Heritage Farm, no buffer required because Heritage Farm did not
have a buffer when it was built. The west line adjoins a single family home zoned RR. There is a pipeline
easement that is east of the property line about 250 feet to the east line of the easement. No additional
buffer is required. On the south property line, we are adjoining both Eden Park neighborhood and on the
easterly portion is an RR parcel that is eligible to be an Open Space PUD. The buffer is 100 feet from
property that could be Open Space PUD. The portion that is bordered by Eden Park should technically be
a 200 foot buffer. We are asking for a modification from this buffer due to the fact that the lots in Eden
Park are wooded lots as well as the distance from the existing homes to the homes proposed in this
development is in excess of 300 feet. The ordinance does provide for buffer mitigation by vegetative
planting… if the buffer is modified. There is a half street, labeled 25th Street that was platted along with
Eden Park. That street will never be opened. With a street… there would have been even less buffer
required.
This project will feature minimum grading to the site. The street layout and lot configuration were
designed to be in harmony with the land. The existing trees and rolling nature of the site make for a
beautiful landscape for this new neighborhood. The grading will be limited to grading for the street and
the storm water ponding features along the south line. There will not be any mass grading of the site, nor
any graded “house pads” in this project. The home sites will be individually located to follow the land.
With the streets being proposed as rural section streets with gravel shoulders, this will feel like another
one of the many desired rural neighborhoods in Lake Elmo.
The park plan for the City of Lake Elmo does not designate a park on this property. A larger parcel was
dedicated as a park just to the north of this project in Heritage Farm. That park land is currently being
4/28/2020
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Page 4 of 4
used as passive open space, instead of a typical developed park. We would anticipate that the City would
prefer to have a “cash in lieu” payment instead of land dedication.
We are hoping to get feedback from the City Staff, Planning Commission and City Council during this
Concept Phase. We have outlined some items that need a 4/5th majority vote to vary from the strict
language of the Open Space PUD requirements and the Shoreland Overlay requirements. They include
using a rural street section without the concrete ribbon curb in favor of gravel shoulders. This would
create a more rural street image while saving the costs of the concrete areas. We also ask to use individual
drainfields instead of communal drainfields, along with the flexibility to site the drainfields in the open
space area of the lots. We ask that the required Homeowners Association be waived for this project.
There will be no commonly owned lands or features that require cost sharing and maintenance. We also
ask for modification to the buffer in one area along the south line (west portion) from 200 feet to 100 feet,
adjacent to the Eden Park neighborhood. Another modification we are asking for is regarding the
stormwater ponding area. It will be created adjacent to the dedicated public street access for the property
to the south and we would prefer to have the lot owner own the area covered by the pond instead of
creating an Outlot. We feel that with the Drainage and Utility Easement covering it, it would be protected
and still allow for City access to the ponds. The adjoining lot owner would be charged with maintaining
the area around the ponds. The Shoreland Ordinance suggests that lot area should be 80,000 square feet
(1.83 acres) and lot with of 200 feet. While many of the lots in this development are within the 1000 foot
area of Downs Lake… but there is NO frontage on the lake and there is NO view of the lake. The
ordinance allows for varying from these two standards. They are created to protect the views from the
lake, as well as the intensity of development on the lake. Included on the “Area Map Around Downs
Lake” you can see the existing homes around the lake are not compliant with either of these two
standards. Also, included on the map there is a cross section line. This helps to illustrate that the new
development doesn’t have any view lines to or from the lake… as well as it being completely screened by
mature trees from the lake. Those mature trees are being preserved by the open space easements.
The open space design elements of the ordinance have been met, or modifications have been requested in
the previous areas of this narrative. We have strived to outline how these deviations or modifications are
supported by achieving the goals of the ordinance. They will allow for a higher quality building and site
design, create a more unified environment for the development by minimizing streets, grading and
disruption of the natural landscape. We look forward to working with the City on creating a harmonious
new neighborhood with this project.
PAGE 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 20, 2020
To: Ken Roberts, Planning Director Re: Bruggeman Open Space PUD (2500 Manning Ave)
Cc: Chad Isakson, PE, Assistant City Engineer Concept Plan Review
From: Jack Griffin, PE, City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for the Bruggeman Open Space (2500 Manning Avenue) Concept Plans
received on April 30, 2020. The submittal consisted of the following documentation:
Concept Plan Narrative dated April 28, 2020.
Concept Plan Open Space Neighborhood, dated April 17, 2020.
STATUS/FINDINGS: Engineering review comments and recommendations should be considered preliminary.
Concept plan changes will be significant to adequately address the requirements from Washington County, and to
make the necessary plan changes to meet city design standards and requirements. It is therefore recommended
that revised concept plans be submitted for additional city review prior to accepting Preliminary Plan submittal.
When submitting revised concept plans, the application should be deemed complete unless the submittal meets
the minimum city ordinance requirements, including a 1” = 100’ scaled existing conditions plan; labeled 2‐ft.
contours; and a 1” = 100’ scaled proposed site plan.
STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION
Manning Avenue right‐of‐way. Additional right‐of‐way must be dedicated along Manning Avenue to provide
90‐feet of right‐of‐way from the Manning Avenue centerline. The proposed plan only shows 60‐feet.
Access Management. Washington County has reviewed and approved the access point to Manning Avenue.
Based on County improvement plans for Manning Avenue, this access will likely become a right‐in right‐out
access with a center median preventing full access to the neighborhood. With the approval of this access,
a local street right‐of‐way must be provided (as shown) to the property to the south as an additional access
to Manning Avenue will not be permitted by the County for development of this southerly property.
Manning Avenue Improvements. The development will be responsible to make improvements to Manning
Avenue, at developer’s sole cost, with all improvements installed per Washington County requirements.
Improvements include right and center left turn lanes at the intersection of the new local street.
Local Street Access Improvements. The local street connection at Manning Avenue should include a short
length of wider street to provide dedicated right and left turn lanes onto Manning Avenue.
Manning Avenue Trail. The developer will be responsible to construct a 10‐ft. wide bituminous trail along
the frontage of Manning Avenue consistent with the Washington County trail plans.
Secondary Access. A residential street connection is required to Lisbon Avenue in the Heritage Farms
development, as shown, connecting to Lisbon Avenue where there is existing right‐of‐way. Parts of Lisbon
Avenue will need to be reconstructed into the Heritage Farms neighborhood to convert the existing cul‐de‐
FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.
Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264
Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267
Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4283
PAGE 2 of 3
sac to a future through street meeting current city street design standards. Updating to current standard is
necessary as the street is converted from a dead end to a through street.
A residential street stub will be required to the southerly plat limits as shown. The stub location must be
coordinated with the property owner, and both the right‐of‐way must be platted and the street constructed
as part of this development. If the street is not required to be constructed as part of this development, this
street connection is likely to not be completed as planned.
All streets must be designed to meet the City Engineering Design Standards including R/W width, street
width and cul‐de‐sac radii. Surmountable concrete curb and gutter should be installed in single family
residential areas with future driveways and B618 curb installed along entrance roadways.
The application requests 24‐foot wide rural section streets, no ribbon curb, and within 50‐foot right‐
of‐way. Rural section streets are prohibited by the Open Space ordinance and are not
recommended.
Rural section streets with property constructed roadway drainage ditches would not fit within a 60‐
foot right‐of‐way, in particular with a trail or sidewalk.
If rural roadways are permitted, concrete ribbon curb in accordance with city standards should be
required to protect the roadway from premature failure.
The minimum development right‐of‐way must be determined based on roadway design specifications and
proposed roadway use.
An 8‐foot bituminous trail with 2‐foot clear zones is recommended to be constructed along the
entire length of all proposed streets, as shown. The proposed right‐of‐way of 50‐feet is not
sufficient to accommodate the city standard urban roadway with 8‐foot bituminous trail. A
minimum of 60‐feet is required.
Street widths should be constructed consistent with the revised city standards dated April 2019 to
address adequate emergency access along all city streets.
On‐street parking needs should be considered and street widths adjusted accordingly in areas
where parking is deemed needed and to meet city design standards.
Parkway or divided roadways must be a minimum of 19 feet wide from face of curb to face of curb.
The divided roadway segment of Lisbon Avenue must be reconstructed to meet current city
standard for divided one‐way streets.
The proposed public street appears to cross a significant drainage way. The preliminary plans will need
include a detailed drainage design to identify adequate culvert capacity while meeting city design standards.
An emergency overflow will be required as part of the street design and supporting hydraulic modeling
provided.
Ten (10) foot utility easements are required on either side of all right‐of‐way.
The new local street must intersect Manning Avenue at 90‐degrees and maintain a minimum 100‐tangent
prior to any curvature. The maximum street slope in the first 50 feet cannot exceed 2.5%.
Residential maximum longitudinal grade is 6% with sidewalks/trails.
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
Municipal water service is readily available within the Heritage Farms development located north of the
proposed subdivision. The applicant is responsible to extend municipal water into the development to serve
the proposed properties. Use of private wells is not recommended due to the ongoing groundwater
contamination issues in the area.
Two connection points to the existing watermain system is recommended. The subdivision should connect
to the existing 6‐inch watermain located in Lisbon Avenue and extend along the length of the proposed
public roadway. City design standards only permit a maximum length for dead end pipe of 1,000 feet. A
second connection should be made to Lisbon Court North on the east side of the Heritage Farms
subdivision.
Extension of city water to serve this development may pose circulation and service pressure concerns.
Should the development proceed forward, it is recommended that a water service study be completed to
analyze system capacity and pressures for serving the proposed subdivision.
PAGE 3 of 3
A watermain lateral stub will be required to the south plat limits for future extension of city water along
Lisbon Avenue within the Eden Park subdivision.
A watermain lateral stub will be required to the south plat limits along the proposed stub street.
Trunk watermain oversizing will need to be evaluated upon receipt of preliminary plat/plans.
MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER / WATEWATER MANAGEMENT
The development property is located outside of the City designated Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA)
for sanitary sewer service. The developer is proposing individual on‐site wastewater treatment systems for
each lot to address wastewater management within the development.
Individual on‐site wastewater treatment systems (ISTS) are regulated by Washington County and
would be required to meet the permitting requirements of the County. City ordinances also
requires all ISTS to conform to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Standard Chapter 7080.
The application should be revised to show both a primary and secondary ISTS system for each lot
and both systems must be fully located on the lot it serves (no common areas).
The Concept plan must be revised to show all septic systems meeting all setback requirements,
including 10‐feet from all property lines and 20‐feet from all structures. Setbacks should be
dimensioned and labeled on the revised plans.
All septic systems must be shown to not encroach any part of a lot easement or drainage and utility
easement, including all 100‐year HWL from adjacent storm water ponds and from the stormwater
drainage pathway.
At the time of Preliminary Plat submittal, the application should be deemed incomplete unless the applicant
has demonstrated sufficient available land for the use of individual on‐site wastewater treatment systems
for each lot, with each ISTS meeting or exceeding all applicabl e City rules and MPCA Chapter 7080. Submittal
documents must include documentation from field investigations and soil borings taken at the proposed
ISTS locations demonstrating suitable soils for each site.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The site plan is subject to a storm water management plan meeting State, VBWD and City rules and
regulations. No proposed storm water management plan was provided as part of the Concept Plan.
Storm water facilities proposed for the site plan,meeting State and VBWD permitting requirements, must
be constructed in accordance with the all City Engineering Design Standards.
The general drainage system should mimic the natural topography of the site in order to ensure a drainage
system that provides positive storm water drainage across the development. Overland emergency
overflows or outlets will be required as part of the site plan.
The site plan shows one storm water pond area located on Lot 1, Block 3. The Site plans must be revised to
show all storm water basins to be located on dedicated Outlots. The Stormwater Facility Outlots must fully
incorporate the 100‐year HWL, 10‐foot maintenance bench and all maintenance access roads. Preliminary
drainage calculations should be performed as part of revising the concept plans for resubmittal to allow for
adequate storm water basin site planning.
The site plan shows one storm water pond area located within an existing storm water drainage path. It is
likely that the storm water pond will need to be located to allow for the continuation for the existing
drainage path.
The storm sewer system shall be designed to maintain the City standard minimum pipe cover of 3 feet.
Drain tile is required as part of the City standard street section at all localized low points in the street. Drain
tile considerations may impact the storm sewer design and depth requirements at low points.
Per City requirements all storm sewer pipe easements must be a minimum 30‐feet in width.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
All public improvements constructed to support the development must be designed and constructed in
accordance with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual available on the City website.
11660 Myeron Road North, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-9573
Phone: 651-430-4300 • Fax: 651-430-4350 • TTY: 651-430-6246
www.co.washington.mn.us
Equal Employment Opportunity / Affirmative Action
S
May 15, 2020
Ken Roberts
Planning Director
City of Lake Elmo
3600 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN. 55042
Re: Washington County comments on the Concept Plan, Open Space Neighborhood
4/17/2020 in the City of Lake Elmo
Dear Mr. Roberts,
We have reviewed the Concept Plan, Open Space Neighborhood dated 4/17/2020 in the City of
Lake Elmo. The property is located in Section 24, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, along
County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 15 (Manning Avenue), north of Manning Trail North and
south of 30th Street North. Development on the 32.27 acre parcel will consist of 14 single
family homes. The project will involve grading, installation of public and private infrastructure,
open space preservation, street and home construction, and stormwater ponding. Based on
the plans submitted, we offer the following comments:
• The preliminary and final plat will need to reflect future right-of way along CSAH 15 as
identified in the Washington County Comprehensive Plan 2040, Transportation Plan,
Minimum Right-of-Way Widths for County Roads. The identified future right-of-way
width along CSAH 15/Manning Avenue is 180 feet (90 feet from the centerline of the
roadway). The current concept plan, dated 4/17/2020, identifies only 60 feet from the
centerline of CSAH 15/Manning Avenue. The preliminary and final plat plan should be
updated to reflect an additional 30 feet of right-of-way.
• The access point is acceptable to the county. The developer will need to submit plans
for right and center left turn-lane improvements along CSAH15/Manning Avenue for the
intersection at the new local street. The timing of these improvements should be
discussed further with the City of Lake Elmo based on the phasing of the development.
• The concept plan should be revised to identify a local street right-of-way to provide
future access to the parcels west of the development.
• A County trail is shown on the west side of CSAH 15/Manning Avenue, Future Trail
System Map in the Washington County 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This trail is a long
range plan to be implemented as development occurs, or as part of a planned larger
Public Works Department
Donald J. Theisen, P.E.
Director
Wayne H. Sandberg, P.E.
Deputy Director/County Engineer
Page 2
May 10, 2020
Concept Plan
Open Space Neighborhood
11660 Myeron Road North, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-9573
Phone: 651-430-4300 • Fax: 651-430-4350 • TTY: 651-430-6246
www.co.washington.mn.us
Equal Employment Opportunity / Affirmative Action
roadway project. Any trail should be planned as part of a larger project and will be
evaluated at that time.
• Any work in the county right-of-way will require a right-of-way permit, including:
grading for the installation of culverts, installation of water and sewer services, turn lane
modifications, road improvements, trails, Americans with Disability Act (ADA) ramp
improvements.
• Although the county has not reviewed a stormwater plan to date, the developer, city or
watershed district must submit the drainage report and calculations for review of any
downstream impacts to the county drainage system. Along with the drainage
calculations, there must be written conclusions that the volume and rate of stormwater
run-off into any county right-of-way will not increase as part of the project.
• Washington County's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility
between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often
result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from adjacent highways could
exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA),
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for
taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise
Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in
violations of established noise standards. Minnesota Statute 116.07, Subpart 2a
exempts County Roads and County State Aid Highways from noise thresholds.
• County policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the
expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The
developer should assess the noise situation and take any action outside of County right-
of-way deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise.
If you have any questions or comments to the responses on the Concept Plan, Open Space
Neighborhood, please contact me at Ann.pung-terwedo@co.washington.mn.us.
Sincerely,
Ann Pung-Terwedo, Senior Planner
Cc: Joe Gustafson, Traffic Engineer
Wenck | Colorado | Georgia | Minnesota | North Dakota | Wyoming
Toll Free 800-472-2232 Web wenck.com
To: Ken Roberts, City of Lake Elmo Planning Director
From: Lucius Jonett, Wenck Landscape Architect
Date: May 6, 2020
Subject: City of Lake Elmo Concept Plan Review
Bruggemen Open Space PUD, Review #1
Submittals
Land Use Review Form and Maps, dated April 30, 2020, received May 5, 2020.
Bruggemen Development Concept, dated April 17, 2020, received May 5, 2020.
Location: Southern half of the northeast quarter of Section 24, west of Manning Avenue
North
Land Use Category: Rural Residential
Surrounding Land Use Concerns: None
Special landscape provisions in addition to the zoning code: Open Space PUD
standards require 10 trees per building site. There must be a boulevard tree to account for
every 30 linear feet of public street. A 200-foot buffer is required from all adjacent property
lines that abut an existing residential development, as well as a 100-foot buffer from all
adjacent property lines that abut land that is eligible for future development as an open
space planned unit development.
Findings:
1. The applicant is preserving a large majority of all the existing trees onsite and is asking
that these trees make up for the 10 required trees for each building site. They are also
proposing that future landowners be responsible for purchasing and planting these 10
required trees. Open Space PUD standards do not state that any preserved trees will
account for the required 10 trees per building site. A landscape plan for the development
is required, showing the 10 proposed trees per building site.
2. The applicant is proposing planting the 64 required boulevard trees, one for every 30
lineal feet.
3. The preserved trees on site may count towards the required screening buffers the Open
Space PUD call for. The applicant is asking that the area that borders Eden Park be
revised from a required 200-foot buffer to a 100-foot buffer due to the lots in Eden Park
being wooded. Standards require a 200-foot buffer no matter what is being provided on
the abutting Rural Residential lots. There is also a road that was platted that will not be
built, meaning the buffer will not need to be modified, so buffer requirements remain the
same.
Ken Roberts
Planning Director
City of Lake Elmo May 6, 2020
2
\\wenck.local\wenckspace\Vol1\6443 Lake Elmo\28 Bruggemen Open Space PUD\01 Preliminary Plat\01 Plan Review\2020-05-06 Initial Review\2020-05-06 Bruggemen Concept Plan
Review.docx
Recommendation:
It is recommended that conditions of approval include:
1. The applicant provides a landscape plan showing 10 existing or proposed trees per
building lot, with the intention of providing the required trees per Open Space PUD
standards.
a. Existing trees meeting the City ordinance definition for significant tree can be
counted. A healthy tree measuring a minimum of six (6) inches in diameter for
hardwood deciduous trees, 19 ft. in height or eight (8) inches in diameter for
coniferous/evergreen trees, or twelve (12) inches in diameter for common trees.
b. If 10 or more significant, existing trees are located on a proposed lot, 10 new
trees do not need to be planted.
c. If less than 10 significant, existing trees are located on a proposed lot, additional
new trees do need to be planted to make the number of new and existing
significant trees at least 10.
d. If no significant, existing trees are located on a proposed lot, 10 new trees do
need to be planted.
2. The applicant provides a landscape plan showing the 64 required boulevard trees. These
required boulevard trees are in addition to any trees required to meet the 10 tree per lot
requirements above.
3. The applicant provides all required 100-foot and 200-foot buffers required with the Open
Space PUD standards.
Sincerely,
Lucius Jonett, PLA (MN)
Wenck Associates, Inc.
City of Lake Elmo Municipal Landscape Architect
12445 55th Street North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 * Phone: 651-439-8833 * Website: FFSurveying.com
Bruce A. Folz, LS Timothy J. Freeman, LS
1939 – 2001 Principal
June 8, 2020
Additional clarification of items surrounding the proposed
Concept Plan for Open Space PUD for Bruggeman
on Johnson Land south of Heritage Farm
At the Planning Commission meeting on May 27, 2020 there seemed to be some confusion about how
many items were being requested to vary from the OP PUD Ordinance. We would like a chance to outline
the specific requests we are asking for… and discuss some of the items in the staff reports.
1) Easements versus Outlots for Open Space Conservation as well as for Ponding and Drainage.
There is no difference in the protection of the lands utilizing Easements versus Outlots. Outlots to
the City will take the land off the tax roll… and they still need a declaration or easement to outline
the intended restrictions and allowed uses, much the same as an easement would do. Taking these
lands as Outlots will effectively kill the project because of density.
2) DNR and Shoreland Standards. These requirements are typically made to preserve and protect the
shorelands of public waterbodies. The cross section drawing shows that this project cannot be
seen from the shoreline of Downs Lake, even without the existing trees along the southerly
property line. These additional requirements would cause a severe reduction in density… which
cannot support the improvements that are required for this project.
3) The request for a reduced buffer from 200 feet to 100 feet. The reason for having buffers is to
keep some additional space between neighborhoods of differing densities. The area that we are
requesting is next to the Eden Park neighborhood. That neighborhood has smaller lots that the lots
proposed in this OP PUD. We would suggest that our project plant some evergreen trees between
those existing homes and the new homes to help screen the two from each other.
4) The trees that are required by the ordinance are fine with this development. We intend to plant the
street trees required at clustering locations as allowed by the ordinance. We ask that the 10 trees
pre lot (where there are not 10 existing trees) be planted along with the home construction instead
of prior to that. This would allow the new homeowners to choose their tree species and plant them
along with their Individual landscape design… instead of placing trees that might just be in the
way of the home or septic systems. There could be a restriction on those lots that they can’t get
their Certificate of Occupancy until the required trees are planted.
5) The Engineers Report is far more comprehensive than we are used to seeing with a Concept Plan.
We do agree with most of the items in his three-page report. This includes the right of way being
60 feet, the rural section roadway being 28 feet wide with concrete strips along the edges and
building a concrete sidewalk 6 feet wide. There are just a few items that are policy issues that we
are asking the City Council to decide on. I would like to explain further.
a. The road access to the south has been reviewed by the owners to the south. They do not
have any plans to develop in the near future. We ask that we dedicate a City Street right of
way, build the road subgrade, install the watermain and cap it, install gravel base and then
instead of paving it… we put down some black dirt and seed it. This would only require
6/5/2020
Concept Plan-Addl. Items
Page 2 of 2
the curbs and pavement to be installed if it is developed in the future. No sense paving a
street that won’t be used. It may even need updating before it is ever used. The road and
utility connection to the property west of our project is a single homesite parcel. It is only
11.23 acres and cannot be an OP PUD and cannot be further subdivided. It also appears to
be completely covered by a Drainage and Utility Easement. A street and watermain stub
do not seem to make much sense in this case.
b. The watermain loop connection for Lisbon Court. This connection was not required when
the Heritage Farm project was built. We feel that we should be required to build a stub to
our north property line, to be used for a loop connection. It is nearly impossible for this
private property owner to request a violation of the Conservation Easement that is hel d by
the Minnesota Land Trust. They have not been very receptive to ANY changes to the
easement they were granted originally. The watermain stub for the Eden Park
neighborhood doesn’t seem to make much sense. It would require the City to condemn and
pay for the right of way for Lisbon Avenue. It was vacated years ago at the request of the
adjoining property owners.
c. We feel that it is not too much to ask the City Council to consider allowing the septic drain-
fields in the Conservation Easement areas. They were allowed that way in the past. The
ordinance has evolved and changed over time. Communal Septic Systems are allowed
currently in the Conservation Easements, but not individual septic systems. We can do it
either way… but, I don’t think very many people like the Communal Systems these days.
d. A trail along Manning Avenue was mentioned in the Washington County review letter.
We understand that an additional 30 feet of right of way is required… but, it did state that
the trail should be built when the Highway is upgraded. My discussions with the Highway
Department revealed that they have no design plans ready at this time.
e. The last item is going into the Heritage Farm streets and upgrading them because this will
change from a dead end to a through street. This doesn’t seem fair to us. The street was
always thought of as a through street. The right of way was required and platted when
Heritage Farm was created. The recent plan for upgrading the streets as a part of installing
sewer to the Heritage Farm neighborhood didn’t require any street size upgrades. Why
should this project be required to make upgrades to streets that were built according to the
City Street standards of the day?
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-074
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BRUGGEMANN BUILDERS CONCEPT OP PUD PLANS
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 2500 MANNING AVENUE NORTH
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Tim Freeman, representing Paul Bruggeman and Bruggeman Builders,
submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (City) for a Concept OP PUD Plan for a 14-lot
residential open space planned unit development (OP PUD) on a 32 acre property located at 2500
Manning Avenue North, a copy of which is on file in the City of Lake Elmo Planning Department;
and
WHEREAS, notice was published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo Zoning
Ordinance, Section 154.102; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held public hearing on May 27, 2020 to
review and consider the Concept OP PUD approval request; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending to the
City Council approval of the Concept OP PUD subject to 22 conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Director submitted a report and recommendation
about the Concept OP PUD as part of a memorandum to the City Council for the July 7, 2020 City
Council Meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Concept OP PUD application for the property
located at 2500 Manning Avenue North at its meeting held on July 7, 2020 and made the following
findings of fact:
1. That the proposed OP PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. That the proposed OP PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the purpose and intent of OP PUD’s in
Lake Elmo by:
a. Providing greater development flexibility while maintaining the rural character by preserving
agricultural land, woodlands, wildlife or natural corridors and other significant natural features.
b. Providing for:
1. An avenue to provide a development density equal to or greater than what could be achieved
via the underlying zoning;
2. A reduction in the costs to construct and maintain public facilities and infrastructure in a
rural setting;
3. Protecting open space to enhance and preserve the natural character of the community;
4. The creation of distinct neighborhoods that are interconnected within rural areas;
5. The preservation large contiguous open spaces.
3. That the proposed OP PUD concept plan meets the prerequisites for open space PUDs as outlined in
Section 154.655 of the City Code (existing zoning, 20 acre minimum site and the sites in single
ownership or control).
4. That all open space PUD design standards and all open space development standards (as outlined in
Section 154.660 of the City Code) are met; or if deviations are proposed, that all such deviations are
supported because they achieve the following three goals:
The deviations allow for a higher quality building and site design that will enhance aesthetics of the
site.
The deviations help to create a more unified environment within the project boundaries by ensuring
one of more of the following: architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient vehicular and
pedestrian circulation, enhanced landscaping and site features and/or efficient use of utilities;
The overall design provides appropriate solutions to eliminate adverse impacts that propose
deviations may impose on surrounding lands.
5. That the OP PUD Concept Plan generally complies with the City’s Subdivision regulations.
6. That the OP PUD Concept Plan is generally consistent with the City’s engineering standards with
exceptions as noted in the City Engineer’s memorandum dated May 20, 2020.
7. That the OP PUD Concept Plan meets the minimum requirements for an OP PUD including minimum
lot area and street layout.
8. That the OP PUD Concept Plan will preserve and enhance important environmental features through
careful and sensitive placement of buildings and facilities.
9. That the PUD Concept Plan meets the general intent of the Village Mixed Use Land Use
designation in the Comprehensive Plan and the Village Mixed Use zoning district with PUD
modifications.
10. That the PUD Concept Plan generally complies with the City’s Subdivision regulations.
11. That the PUD Concept Plan is generally consistent with the City’s engineering standards
with exceptions as noted in the City Engineer’s memorandum dated July 1, 2019.
12. The PUD Concept Plan meets the minimum requirement for a PUD including minimum lot
area, open space and street layout.
13. The PUD Concept Plan meets more than one of the required PUD objectives identified in
Section 154.751 including providing: innovation in land development techniques that may be
more suitable for a given parcel than conventional approaches; provision of a more adequate,
usable, and suitably located open space, recreational amenities and other public facilities than
would otherwise be provided under conventional land development techniques;
accommodation of housing of all types with convenient access to employment opportunities
and/or commercial facilities; and especially to create additional opportunities for senior and
affordable housing; coordination of architectural styles and building forms to achieve greater
compatibility within the development and surrounding land uses; and higher standards of site
and building design than would otherwise be provided under conventional land development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby approve
the Concept OP PUD Plans for the property located at 2500 Manning Avenue North as prepared by
Folz, Freeman Surveying for Bruggeman Builders subject to the following conditions:
1. That the future preliminary plat and preliminary OP PUD Plans includes the parcel with the PID#
24-029-21-13-0002.
2. That the future preliminary plat and preliminary OP PUD Plans submittal identify all requests for
flexibility or modifications from the OP PUD Development and Shoreland PUD standards.
3. That before submitting an application to the City for preliminary PUD plan/plat approval, the
developer revise the OP PUD concept plans to address the recommended changes and to allow for
additional City review.
4. That any future preliminary PUD plan/plat submittal address all comments from the City Engineer in
the letter to the City dated May 20, 2020. In particular, the preliminary development plans must
address the street right-of-way width, street and trail design standards and storm water management
in the subdivision.
5. That any future preliminary PUD plan/plat submittal address all comments from the City Landscape
Architect in the letter to the City dated May 6, 2020. In particular, the preliminary PUD landscaping
plans must address the preservation and planting of trees and the required screening within the
development – especially to the properties to the south.
6. That the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans submittal include a landscape, screening and
buffering plan to address the requirements of the City Landscape Architect and City open space
overlay area requirements.
7. The proposed street providing a connection to the property to the south must be included as part of
the improvement and construction plans for the PUD.
8. The developer must work with the property owner immediately to the south of the proposed
subdivision concerning the alignment of the proposed future street to their property.
9. That a shoreland tier analysis be provided with the future preliminary plat and preliminary PUD
plans submittal.
10. That the preliminary PUD plans show at least 50 percent of the gross acreage of the development site
as protected open space.
11. That any preliminary PUD/plat approval be contingent on complying with Washington County’s
requirements and requests regarding the need for additional right-of-way, turn lanes and trails in and
along Manning Avenue.
12. That the applicant shall secure all necessary permits from Washington County for the proposed
access off of Manning Avenue North and for any work occurring in the Manning Avenue right-of-
way.
13. That the developer provide trails and sidewalks as recommended by the City Engineer and the Parks
Commission.
14. That all public trails and sidewalks must be located outside of storm water ponding areas and
wetland buffer zones.
15. That all wetlands and wetland buffer areas be contained on outlots outside of lot areas.
16. That all storm water retention and infiltration areas must be dedicated to the City and platted as
outlots on the preliminary and final plat unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer.
17. That all open space areas be platted in separate outlots to be commonly owned and managed by a
homeowners’ association.
18. That the developer provide fees in lieu of park land dedication as required by Section 153.14 with
future final plat.
19. That the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans comply with any comments or requirements
provided by the DNR.
20. The developer must submit a detailed PUD plan as part of any future preliminary PUD development
plans. The PUD plan shall include a detailed listing of all requested departures or modifications
from City ordinances, shoreland regulations and development standards.
21. The developer must prepare a plan for ownership and management of the proposed open space and
conservation areas as part of preliminary PUD plans.
22. That the developer revise the PUD plans to show the location of a community septic system as
required by the Shoreland Ordinance.
Passed and duly adopted this 7th day of July, 2020 by the Lake Elmo Minnesota City Council.
____________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk